I do, if the case can be made it was actually the Syrian army that used the chemical weapons and not the rebels.

I'd institute a no fly zone and strike where we think the weapons are being made, along with Syrian army posts and installations. I'd also warn Assad we've got drones looking for him and stepping down and escaping to Russia might be a smart move.

I know the ramifications could be that AQ ends up taking control. But at this point I view Assad the same as AQ. I just don't see how we can look the other way when a leader uses WMD on his own people.

I am not sure I buy all his reasons for why, though I think it's part of it. Here, a Four Star General Clark claims
there was a memo to take out "seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

"koOkY" is HCF word when he suffers from cognitive dissonance or can't spot things that don't fit, which is just using logic. Leadership in America today is criminal. They even repress us economically and want more people to be slaves to the state.

Like I said, if. Bring forth the evidence so the public can help decide the issue. You really haven't proven it wasn't Assad's government.

We shouldn't decide the issue. Thus any need for total evidence, or at least beyond contradictory facts, is necessary. It makes no difference how people die. It's a Civil War.

However, there is evidence that contradicts official claims. That's enough. Testimony of Syrian people is part of the evidence. That's enough to back off. Plus it makes no logical sense since Assad was winning
You should run the UN or head up some form of World Govt since those who have the most military force can rule the world. You're being a Wilsonian progressive here. Why?

Sequestration (or the effects thereof) is certainly NOT over... this time next year, DoD will look back on 2013 as a "good" year budget-wise. But back to the topic...

What's missing from this discussion is the OPCW... 189 nations are signatories to the ban on chemical weapons (Syria is NOT one of them). OPCW answers to the UN and the Hague. If the case for chemical weapons is so compelling, why are we hearing nothing from either the UN or the Hague? Why are all of the 189 signatories mute except the US and France? Why the lack of gonads from the world at large?

Any action MUST be multi-lateral; a coalition consisting of more than just the US and France. Congress should insist on that.

That's UN progressivism...and it still violates international law because it's interference in an internal conflict. We still have nation states, last I looked.

Pale-Conservative Pat Buchanan : Chemical Attack ‘Reeks Of False Flag Operation’
During an interview with Newsmax Thursday, three-time presidential adviser Pat Buchanan joined the growing number of mainstream voices now specifically labeling the recent chemical attacks in Syria as a false flag.

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

Throughout the course of the Syrian conflict, the Obama administration and its western allies have continually failed at their attempts to bring down the Assad government. Despite the administration’s claims of an “undeniable” Assad chemical attack, US officials have continued to cast doubt on the evidence.

Evidence pointing to a rebel-backed false flag chemical attack to blame Assad has continued to pile up as public approval for a Syrian intervention crumbles. Not only did the British parliament vote down the Cameron government’s attempts to intervene militarily, A Reuters poll from earlier this week found that 91 percent of Americans oppose military air strikes.

Guess there's a lot of "KoOks" out there! I think it's more like some people's logic operates in a state of suspended animation when faced with such claims that have so many contradictions. Plus why would Assad do this to his own people when he has the support of the middle-class, the business class and the Christians.

Ron Paul on getting a nod from Congress on this military intervention (euphemism for an act of aggression nowadays):

Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter?
Ron Paul September 1, 2013

President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way. Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented "a serious danger to our national security." I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.

According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and "limited" missile and air strikes would cost "in the billions" of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."

Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama's speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president's war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president's war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.

That's UN progressivism...and it still violates international law because it's interference in an internal conflict. We still have nation states, last I looked.

BEP - in my best "Joe vs the Volcano" voice, I'm not arguing that. If the World Court and/or UN (and I fully realize Russia has veto power, Pat) is unwilling to take any action, we have NO mandate for unilateral action (which is equally illegal).